Revival Sermons

Lifestyle & Contemporary Issues => Christian Standards => Topic started by: wordkeeper on August 25, 2009, 08:24:20 AM

Title: Christian Modesty
Post by: wordkeeper on August 25, 2009, 08:24:20 AM
I would like to humbly ask you for help on my modesty website. I believe that Christian modesty is an urgent message. The standards have fallen so low in our churches that we cannot be a true witness for God. How the angels must weep. I am saddened by my own lack of modesty over the years, and as I am learning and growing, I want to help others do the same.

There is much to learn in this area, and those who have been practicing Christian modesty for many years can be a great help to those who are taking their first baby steps in that direction.

I earnestly desire your help in putting together a web site that will provide information, encouragement and support for our sisters who desire to learn of God
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on August 25, 2009, 11:03:22 AM
I would like to humbly ask you for help on my modesty website. I believe that Christian modesty is an urgent message. The standards have fallen so low in our churches that we cannot be a true witness for God. How the angels must weep. I am saddened by my own lack of modesty over the years, and as I am learning and growing, I want to help others do the same.

There is much to learn in this area, and those who have been practicing Christian modesty for many years can be a great help to those who are taking their first baby steps in that direction.

I earnestly desire your help in putting together a web site that will provide information, encouragement and support for our sisters who desire to learn of God
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Deborah Risinger on August 26, 2009, 11:57:01 AM
Indeed....I am impressed with this...

God's Blessings'
Deborah :-)
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on August 26, 2009, 04:38:44 PM
Indeed....I am impressed with this...

God's Blessings'
Deborah :-)
me too  :-)
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on August 27, 2009, 12:07:37 PM
No offense Linda, but if it works for you and others, great...I just wouldn't submit myself or my students to that strict of standards that some of the schools on your website promote and I don't believe God looks down on me for not wanting to subject myself or anyone else to it. To me, it sounds alot like the fanaticism you say you'd like to avoid on your site.

Some of the rules are so long and detailed that I think it probably puts many of the Pharisees numerous legalistic requirements to shame.   When the rules for dress alone are nothing more than "don't do this, and this, and this (etc, etc, etc)if you want to be a pure, God-accepted Christian SDA' and the list is longer than our Fundamental Beliefs, I would think it would be difficult to feel free to think or dress for yourself with such rigidity. Some people like it and need it I guess.  Speaking as a teacher who has had to try to enforce rules like this in the past, I can't even imagine what the poor teachers that have to regulate and enforce these rules must go through.

What I see is this:

modest clothing=clothing worn and interpreted by 19th century and 1950s standards

Kids can still be with the times and still be modest without having to resort to such rigid standards. I don't believe that either dressing like Brittany Spiers on one side or being forced to dress like Caroline Ingalls on the other is the answer.

Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Deborah Risinger on August 31, 2009, 04:59:38 PM
It is true...not everyone will find an interest in this subject...however, it is important....critical to some who have wondering eyes.

I am studying with a couple right now...the husband has been quite frank about his struggle with his "eyes."  He is offended constantly because of the lack of clothing on women.  He has been more honest  (I think) then most men are comfortable with.

We live in a visual world....just like the devil used Eve's eyes against her, he uses our eyes against us.  Our men suffer..

Truly, if this was a "non-issue" there would not have been an orgy at the foot of Sinai, no Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam would not have been able to seduce the Israelites (which 23,000 of them were stoned to death due to their sin), David would not have been captivated while looking at Bathsheba....and on it goes.


This is a problem, admittingly so or not...."nothing new under the sun".  Lets' see...Solomon  never had problems with his eyes I don't think..right?

I am grateful there were those in the SDA Church to help me...I certainly did not alway dress the way I should have...that bothers me even today when I am reminded of certain dresses I wore to church...I feel really bad about it..it was a terrible witness for all that Christ did for me. I was very, very careless....


God Keep Us Mindful for Christ's Sake
Deborah
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Richard OFfill on October 04, 2009, 09:17:33 AM
Yesterday I spoke at a men's retreat (I prefer to call it a men's convention :-)) at the Mount Etna camp in Maryland and one of the topics that I presented was How to Overcome Impure Thoughts. I always begin by acknowledging that we are 'dirty old men'. Having said that I go on to mention that the first result of sin was that Adam and Eve lost their clothes. The first act that God did for the new sinners was to but them back on.

Having said that, continue by saying that it is beyond me that women in general seem to be intent in taking their clothes off. I have on occasion ask women if they want to be seen as a person or a sex object. They always say as a person. If that is true then.......?

I believe the time has come for Christian men to get together to discuss the issue of being 'dirty old men' and at the same time that Christian women get together and discuss why the trend is to 'bare all'.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Pamela Adams on October 04, 2009, 06:31:37 PM
Perhaps if the, "dirty ole men" would come out in the open and tell the ladies how they struggle..it would help. In this age of bi sexual persons with preferences for both sexes, people fail to see, that they attract not only the opposite sex, but the same sex with their choice of dress, not unlike Sodom...while we do not like to think upon these possibilities among our members....still the church does try to protect the children, when requiring certain guidlines in regards to the children departments and who is in the classrooms. We live in a perverted world that is obsessed with sex and advertised widely to all who have eyes to see. While women are often the culprits in these matters, the men are also to be held accountable.

As seen recently for special music, how is it that the gentleman wore skin tight jeans, dress shirt unbuttoned to the midriff, bare chested as if on American Idol.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: V. Hahn on October 04, 2009, 08:35:07 PM
Quote
As seen recently for special music, how is it that the gentleman wore skin tight jeans, dress shirt unbuttoned to the midriff, bare chested as if on American Idol.

Pamela, are you kidding?  How awful!
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 04, 2009, 10:08:15 PM
Pamela, are you kidding?  How awful!
As uncomfortable as it might be, one of the leaders should have intervened in a kindly but direct way. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that has a "rule" against saying anything in such situations and it seems to be very strong in the church.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: wordkeeper on October 05, 2009, 05:32:22 PM
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

This letter is written to those who appreciate God
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 05, 2009, 07:36:54 PM
The AR has an article about "modesty."  It made me ill.  I am stunned they would print this..think in these terms, propagate this to God's people.

The whole article was to promote modesty because it is (my words here) a turn on to men.........unbelieveable.  This is twisted thinking..twisted thinking....


http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2862 

God Help Us...PLEASE,
Deborah  :-(
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 05, 2009, 08:34:05 PM
The AR has an article about "modesty."  It made me ill.  I am stunned they would print this..think in these terms, propagate this to God's people.

The whole article was to promote modesty because it is (my words here) a turn on to men.........unbelieveable.  This is twisted thinking..twisted thinking....


http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2862 

God Help Us...PLEASE,
Deborah  :-(

I hate to say this, but sometimes it seems as though the tares are in charge.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Slingshot on October 05, 2009, 09:14:26 PM
The AR has an article about "modesty."  It made me ill.  I am stunned they would print this..think in these terms, propagate this to God's people.

The whole article was to promote modesty because it is (my words here) a turn on to men.........unbelieveable.  This is twisted thinking..twisted thinking....


http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2862 

God Help Us...PLEASE,
Deborah  :-(


I am stunned that you are stunned.  :-) There is nothing twisted in the article at all.

The author never stated, or even implied, that men were "turned on" by modesty. You read an idea into the essay that's not there.

The author's point was that while most men will ogle the scantily-clad woman, the woman they choose to marry is usually the one who dresses more modestly.  The author also stated the truth that chastity and modesty make a powerful, and a God-ordained, combination. If you find that idea offensive, don't read the Song of Songs.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 06, 2009, 03:28:48 AM
I am stunned that you are stunned.  :-) There is nothing twisted in the article at all.

The author never stated, or even implied, that men were "turned on" by modesty. You read an idea into the essay that's not there.

The author's point was that while most men will ogle the scantily-clad woman, the woman they choose to marry is usually the one who dresses more modestly.  The author also stated the truth that chastity and modesty make a powerful, and a God-ordained, combination. If you find that idea offensive, don't read the Song of Songs.


I believe the author shot herself in the foot with the first sentence:  "Cleavage aside, what does real sex appeal look like? "  That opening clouded whatever else she might have said that was good.  And it seemed to me that the article was too focused on sex.  The point of being modest or being married is not so that one can experience more pleasure from the sexual part of marriage.  It's multifaceted.  It includes things like reflecting Christ's character so as to make the "narrow way" appear attractive to the unbeliever.  It also includes the concept of not being a stumbling block to other saints.  And it provides a better atmosphere to fulfill the counsel of Phil 4:8.

When one practices modesty it creates a situation in which people will be attracted to them for the right reasons:  their Christlike character, rather than their makeup, jewelry, clothing, or lack thereof.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Slingshot on October 06, 2009, 08:25:33 AM
I believe the author shot herself in the foot with the first sentence:  "Cleavage aside, what does real sex appeal look like? "  That opening clouded whatever else she might have said that was good.  And it seemed to me that the article was too focused on sex.  The point of being modest or being married is not so that one can experience more pleasure from the sexual part of marriage.  It's multifaceted.  It includes things like reflecting Christ's character so as to make the "narrow way" appear attractive to the unbeliever.  It also includes the concept of not being a stumbling block to other saints.  And it provides a better atmosphere to fulfill the counsel of Phil 4:8.

When one practices modesty it creates a situation in which people will be attracted to them for the right reasons:  their Christlike character, rather than their makeup, jewelry, clothing, or lack thereof.

I agree that being modest is multi-faceted and that there is more to it than was mentioned in the essay. But I hope we're not to the place where we can't say anything if we don't say everything.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Even though author makes a few valid observations, it seems to me that the overall presentation of the article, in a sense, contradicts what it is trying to say.

"The Allure of Modesty"
The title apparantly reflects the basic assumptions of the author  and the editors that to "allure" men is the goal of young pretty women such as the one pictured at the top of the page. Allure: attract, charm, or fascinate, (Oxford American Dictionary of Current English).

Abviously "attract" is the operative word here, but allure also carries the connation of "charm"; to cast a spell, and "fascinate", to "capture the interest of; attract irresistably," (Ibid)

The theme of the article is stated clearly in the sentence, "What does real sex appeal look like?" The assumption is that "sex appeal" is the ultimate goal of all women including Christian women. 

It is often the case that the communication media conveys more information than a casual reader might consciously notice, but is quickly and easily picked up subliminally. Just ask the owners and editors of  the big popular magazines and the folks who create the ads that they contain.

Deborah had no trouble picking up on the underlying material.  



Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Slingshot on October 06, 2009, 10:29:16 AM
Even though author makes a few valid observations, it seems to me that the overall presentation of the article, in a sense, contradicts what it is trying to say.

"The Allure of Modesty"
The title apparantly reflects the basic assumptions of the author and the editors that to "allure" men is the goal of young pretty women such as the one pictured at the top of the page.

Allure: attract, charm, or fascinate, (Oxford American Dictionary of Current English).

Abviously "attract" is the operative word here, but allure also carries the connation of "charm"; to cast a spell, and "fascinate", to "capture the interest of; attract irresistably," (Ibid)

It is often the case that the communication media conveys more information than a casual reader might consciously notice, but is quickly and easily picked up subliminally. Just ask the owners and editors of  the big popular magazines and the folks who create the ads that they contain.

Deborah had no trouble picking up on the underlying material..  


So....the article was bad because "allure" in addition to meaning "to attract" can carry the conotation of "charm"?

And subliminals in an essay? Wow.

What sublimiinals might we find in Songs of Songs I wonder?

This is interesting: The author and editors are being criticized not for what they said but because of peoples' reaction to what they said. This is classic postmodern textual criticism where the author's intent has no weight against what the reader brings to the text. And this is coming from conservatives?

I have heard speaker after speaker make the very same point that the author made in the essay: modesty is what thoughtful, decent people find truly attractive. I truly do not understand all the brouhaha.

Does Christian fairness even enter into this picture? Are we to condemn the editors and the author for something they never even said or tried to communicate? This isn't Christian, Adventist, or even conversative. This is Orwellian.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2009, 10:33:16 AM
So....the article was bad because "allure" in addition to meaning "to attract" can carry the conotation of "charm"?

And subliminals in an essay? Wow.

What sublimiinals might we find in Songs of Songs I wonder?

This is interesting: The author and editors are being criticized not for what they said but because of peoples' reaction to what they said. This is classic postmodern textual criticism where the author's intent has no weight against what the reader brings to the text. And this is coming from conservatives?

I have heard speaker after speaker make the very same point that the author made in the essay: modesty is what thoughtful, decent people find truly attractive. I truly do not understand all the brouhaha.

Does Christian fairness even enter into this picture? Are we to condemn the editors and the author for something they never even said or tried to communicate? This isn't Christian, Adventist, or even conversative. This is Orwellian.

Take a deep breath Slingshot, you are getting hysterical.  :-D And overreacting, which is what you are accusing others of doing.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on October 06, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
I'm with you Slingshot. I see nothing wrong with this article and the author is advocating modesty and sexual abstinence all over the place. It is sad that so many pick on one or two phrases and make a big deal over it. As far as I'm concerned, conservatives are eating their own by attacking a well thought out and conservative approach to dress and modesty as the article has presented.

Go figure.

Quote
Yes, men are aroused by sultry women who flaunt their sensuality and their bodies as a form of power. They may be helplessly turned on by the many powerful sexual images our culture throws out as bait. But the women they marry are usually the ones whose sensuality is much more hidden from view
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on October 06, 2009, 12:24:18 PM
I believe the author shot herself in the foot with the first sentence:  "Cleavage aside, what does real sex appeal look like?  The point of being modest or being married is not so that one can experience more pleasure from the sexual part of marriage.  It's multifaceted.

Nobody is saying it is THE point, but it is a point as far as the focus goes for dressing like a tramp and engaging in casual sex. The bottom line is that you should be modestly attractive for your husband as that is really what most guys like when it all comes down to the kind of woman they want to marry.

 
It includes things like reflecting Christ's character so as to make the "narrow way" appear attractive to the unbeliever.  It also includes the concept of not being a stumbling block to other saints.  And it provides a better atmosphere to fulfill the counsel of Phil 4:8.

And again, the issue is WHY women dress up like prostitutes. Women don't dress up like tramps because they deliberately want to be stumbling block or smear the character of Christ. They do it because they think it makes them look attractive. This is the facet and mindset that the article is dealing with, not a Jezebel mindset and rebellion against God or authority.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 06, 2009, 03:07:52 PM
wow........this is quite a response.....I did say "my words" when I described what I thought was implied.

I don't think there was an implying in the article that "modest dress was for God's Glory" as it was to be "alluring." That ..I think is the problem.

Communication is not just "what you say...but what you want people to hear." Good communicators makes sure "what they want heard (interpreted by their language) is the emphasis. I do not "see or hear" in the article ,that God's pleasure was  the greatest concern. Am I incorrect?  Did I miss it?  :-)  I am open if I missed it.....

Lord, To Your Glory,
Deborah  :-)
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2009, 04:42:14 PM
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

This letter is written to those who appreciate God
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 06, 2009, 04:56:47 PM

 
And again, the issue is WHY women dress up like prostitutes. Women don't dress up like tramps because they deliberately want to be stumbling block or smear the character of Christ. They do it because they think it makes them look attractive.

And it does make them attractive--to the wrong people and for the wrong reasons.  My whole point (which Deborah stated better than I did) is that the focus of the article was slanted toward what is attractive to the opposite sex, not what is pleasing to God.  Those professed Christians who dress like the world have lost their focus.  They are more concerned with pleasing man than with honoring God.  They are like the Ephesian Church--they have lost their first love and have transferred it to an idol.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: wordkeeper on October 06, 2009, 06:35:53 PM
With all the marvelous counsel given to us by God in the Spirit of Prophecy on modesty, why do we need to print an article in the Review by an Evangelical author who knows nothing about what was entrusted to us? There are many wonderful articles by various authors on my website on modesty. Would the Review print any of them? Probably not. Why are we ignoring what God has told us? We have turned back from following God, and are retreating to Egypt. How sad!
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on October 06, 2009, 07:21:08 PM
With all the marvelous counsel given to us by God in the Spirit of Prophecy on modesty, why do we need to print an article in the Review by an Evangelical author who knows nothing about what was entrusted to us?

Perhaps because having a more updated philosophy than a 19th century "dresses only" mindset set in a different cultural time and custom is what people need and want. Just because measuring the length of your dresses and not showing any skin was the accepted cultural norm back then, and the only thing that the people knew (and felt was the completely right way to do things at the time), doesn't mean that people today should adhere to it. Take the principles and change with the times.

It sounds like that it is what the author of this article is espousing.

From what I have been seeing here, so many of you would rather take EGW literally instead of gleaning the principles according to our times, as if Christian progress ended in EGW's time and everything should be the way it was before 1900. The bottom line is that not everyone thinks that way (and neither should we).
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on October 06, 2009, 07:47:15 PM
these days it seems to wear a skirt is almost like a vow....   

we are noticed for being different and just the other day one of our members was approached and asked if she was a Christian and the whole conversation turned into an evangelistic outreach

today was terribly windy-- 60 mph gusts of wind--so instead of having my dress up over my head,   :roll:         

  I wore pants but with a long top and a winter jacket...



Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 06, 2009, 08:58:42 PM


From what I have been seeing here, so many of you would rather take EGW literally instead of gleaning the principles according to our times, as if Christian progress ended in EGW's time and everything should be the way it was before 1900. The bottom line is that not everyone thinks that way (and neither should we).
Guibox, its hard to pay much attention to what you have to say if you keep stereotyping and catagorizing people you disagree with in a demeaning and negative way. That works well if you want to provoke, but not if you want to take part in a discussion.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 07, 2009, 03:00:07 AM
Perhaps because having a more updated philosophy than a 19th century "dresses only" mindset set in a different cultural time and custom is what people need and want. Just because measuring the length of your dresses and not showing any skin was the accepted cultural norm back then, and the only thing that the people knew (and felt was the completely right way to do things at the time), doesn't mean that people today should adhere to it. Take the principles and change with the times.


Let's see if I can rewrite this to make it appear as it really is.  First I shall rephrase Wordkeeper's comment:  "With all the marvelous counsel given to us by God in the Bible on modesty, why do we need to print an article in the Review by an Evangelical author who knows nothing about what was entrusted to us? "

Next I shall rephrase your response:  "Perhaps because having a more updated philosophy than a 2-3,000 year old mindset set in a different cultural time and custom is what people need and want."

The same arguments used against the SOP have been (and are being) used against the Bible.  If "showing too much skin" was immodest in the 19th century (they showed even less skin in Bible times, by the way--they all wore robes), then what has changed to make it modest today?  Is it because most of us have become desensitized to what is indecent?  You say "take the principles and change with the time," but that's not what's happening.  The principles are being ignored in favor of the current culture.  Culture is not neutral.  If it were, we wouldn't have put clothes on the new converts in the countries where clothing was optional.  
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Slingshot on October 07, 2009, 03:21:01 AM
And it does make them attractive--to the wrong people and for the wrong reasons.  My whole point (which Deborah stated better than I did) is that the focus of the article was slanted toward what is attractive to the opposite sex, not what is pleasing to God.  Those professed Christians who dress like the world have lost their focus.  They are more concerned with pleasing man than with honoring God.  They are like the Ephesian Church--they have lost their first love and have transferred it to an idol.

If we follow this logic across the board, we would not discuss the practical benefits of the health message. We would simply say that God directed us to do it and that would be that. For that matter, we would never discuss the practical aspects of any aspect of our faith. We would simply quote God's directives and expect people to follow them to please God.

God does not expect us to live that way. He invites us to reason with Him and to ask questions.

The article in question simply stated the truth that being modest has its own allure -- there's that word again! -- and that the attraction that flows from modesty is both more healthy and more enduring than that which flows from immodesty. In other words, doing things God's way will get the person tempted to be immodest to an even better place than would the illusory benefit that would be gained from being immodest.

An important point is being missed here: The attraction that flows from true modesty is something that God designed. It shifts the focus from the erotic to the other person's character. Should we not even discuss the practical aspects of this question?

Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Slingshot on October 07, 2009, 03:32:49 AM
With all the marvelous counsel given to us by God in the Spirit of Prophecy on modesty, why do we need to print an article in the Review by an Evangelical author who knows nothing about what was entrusted to us? There are many wonderful articles by various authors on my website on modesty. Would the Review print any of them? Probably not. Why are we ignoring what God has told us? We have turned back from following God, and are retreating to Egypt. How sad!

I doubt that very many on this Forum have a problem following the counsels of Ellen White. But then, I don't think that very many people on this forum struggle with modesty.

Correct me if I'm wrong but do you not believe that those who struggle with modesty in the Adventist church are already aware of God's counsel and simply choose to ignore it or rationalize it away? If that's true, then to help them see the light, you will need to do something than merely present them with something that they already know and have rejected.

Those who do struggle with modesty may have to be convinced of the practical benefits of following God's counsel. If your goal is to simply present people with the "truth" then reprinting articles on modesty by Adventism's founders would certainly do the trick. If, on the other hand, you want to persuade people to change, you have to speak with them and reason with them in a language they understand and will accept.

Paul didn't quote the Torah to the Athenians. It would have meant nothing to them. He discussed Jesus as the One they were unknowingly honoring with their altar "to an unknown god." Was Paul wrong not to share the Torah with them?



Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on October 07, 2009, 06:17:45 AM
Let's see if I can rewrite this to make it appear as it really is.  First I shall rephrase Wordkeeper's comment:  "With all the marvelous counsel given to us by God in the Bible on modesty, why do we need to print an article in the Review by an Evangelical author who knows nothing about what was entrusted to us? "

Next I shall rephrase your response:  "Perhaps because having a more updated philosophy than a 2-3,000 year old mindset set in a different cultural time and custom is what people need and want."

The same arguments used against the SOP have been (and are being) used against the Bible.
 
Your arguments are only valid if you place EGW as the same level as the scriptures. The two are not the same, they do not have the same authority and adapting one is not the same as adapting the other.

Yes, I would hope that we don't run our 21st century lives according to the dictum of a 1st century culture. Our cultures are different. Counsels against 'pleated hair' and 'suffering a woman to keep silent' were cultural norms. Offering foods to idols and bickering over it is not an argument anymore. This was cultural. We don't follow these. We glean the principles from them.

If "showing too much skin" was immodest in the 19th century (they showed even less skin in Bible times, by the way--they all wore robes), then what has changed to make it modest today?  Is it because most of us have become desensitized to what is indecent?  You say "take the principles and change with the time," but that's not what's happening.  The principles are being ignored in favor of the current culture.  Culture is not neutral.  If it were, we wouldn't have put clothes on the new converts in the countries where clothing was optional. 

The bottom line is that cultural norms DO change. Just because it was against cultural norms for skin to be showing, doesn't make showing skin wrong, Raven. Again, you are assuming that the cultural norm of the 18th and 19th centuries were correct in their standards and are trying to make them apply now as if they are established cultural truths. 'If it was wrong back then, why is it okay today?'. Come on. Think about it. There were many unacceptable things back then that we would consider harmless today. Why are we wrong to consider them harmless but they are right for deeming it unacceptable.

Again, if you want to live in the 19th century according to 19th century cultural norms, by all means do it. Just don't judge others for not wanting to live in that mindset. It is perfectly okay to accept those things that may not have been acceptable back then.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: 1WVMom on October 07, 2009, 07:24:56 AM
Dress is more than just about modesty.  There are health principles that go along with the counsel that we were given.....
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on October 07, 2009, 07:41:20 AM
Dress is more than just about modesty.  There are health principles that go along with the counsel that we were given.....
Yes, good point!!   :-)
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 07, 2009, 09:58:49 AM
 
Your arguments are only valid if you place EGW as the same level as the scriptures. The two are not the same, they do not have the same authority and adapting one is not the same as adapting the other.

Yes, I would hope that we don't run our 21st century lives according to the dictum of a 1st century culture. Our cultures are different. Counsels against 'pleated hair' and 'suffering a woman to keep silent' were cultural norms. Offering foods to idols and bickering over it is not an argument anymore. This was cultural. We don't follow these. We glean the principles from them.

The bottom line is that cultural norms DO change. Just because it was against cultural norms for skin to be showing, doesn't make showing skin wrong, Raven. Again, you are assuming that the cultural norm of the 18th and 19th centuries were correct in their standards and are trying to make them apply now as if they are established cultural truths. 'If it was wrong back then, why is it okay today?'. Come on. Think about it. There were many unacceptable things back then that we would consider harmless today. Why are we wrong to consider them harmless but they are right for deeming it unacceptable.

Again, if you want to live in the 19th century according to 19th century cultural norms, by all means do it. Just don't judge others for not wanting to live in that mindset. It is perfectly okay to accept those things that may not have been acceptable back then.


Well, it's clear that this discussion will go nowhere.  You seem to see the Bible and the SOP as "living documents," which can be made to fit whatever cultural norms exist at the time.  As for the SOP being on a equal footing as the Bible; well we've been down this road before.  When a prophet speaks under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we'd better listen.  I don't care whether it was Isaiah or Ellen White.  The same Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they wrote.

Just because the culture finds it acceptable for ladies to show more skin doesn't make it right.  I would rather err on the side of caution, and risk being accused of living the 19th century.  There are worse things to be accused of than that.  May I remind you that "cultural norms" are not what dictates how we dress or behave.  Cultural norms tend to be worldly and become more so as time goes on.  Our standard is the Bible, and we are given more details in the SOP.  You may not like it, but it is certainly safer to follow the counsels in those sources than to put the finger to the wind to see which way it is blowing.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: guibox on October 07, 2009, 10:28:28 AM
You seem to see the Bible and the SOP as "living documents," which can be made to fit whatever cultural norms exist at the time.

And so do you unless you sacrifice animals, avoid your wife during menstruation, wash everyone's feet who comes into your house, ride bicycles and so on and so forth. 

As for the SOP being on a equal footing as the Bible; well we've been down this road before.  When a prophet speaks under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we'd better listen.  I don't care whether it was Isaiah or Ellen White.  The same Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they wrote.

That's a nice way of saying that the SOP is the 67th book of the Bible. Either it is or it isn't. The 'same HS inspired them' argument is a nice ambiguous way of making EGW a near scriptural authority out of one side of the mouth while denying it on the other side.

If our church would stop talking in such ambiguous language concerning Sister White and the SOP, we probably wouldn't have so many bitter enemies against her and the church.

Just because the culture finds it acceptable for ladies to show more skin doesn't make it right.  I would rather err on the side of caution, and risk being accused of living the 19th century.

So who determines this? Sister White? The Taliban? What is deemed unacceptable and 'contemptible against God' changes from culture to culture. We look at strict Islam and call them fanatics because of their views on women being uncovered. Why? Why are they wrong but we are right? Do you really believe that showing a bit of leg or shoulder is a sinful thing? Since when has our society ever made that an issue? Simply because it was an issue in EGW's time and is an issue for strict Islam, doesn't mean it is an issue for our society today. does not society deem that as appropriate but a woman bearing her breasts as inappropriate? Why the difference?

If you want to follow it all the way, we should be acting like strict Islamists. Culture, culture, culture Raven.

 There are worse things to be accused of than that.  May I remind you that "cultural norms" are not what dictates how we dress or behave.  Cultural norms tend to be worldly and become more so as time goes on.  Our standard is the Bible, and we are given more details in the SOP.  You may not like it, but it is certainly safer to follow the counsels in those sources than to put the finger to the wind to see which way it is blowing.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 07, 2009, 11:28:16 AM
1--And so do you unless you sacrifice animals, avoid your wife during menstruation, wash everyone's feet who comes into your house, ride bicycles and so on and so forth. 

2--That's a nice way of saying that the SOP is the 67th book of the Bible. Either it is or it isn't. The 'same HS inspired them' argument is a nice ambiguous way of making EGW a near scriptural authority out of one side of the mouth while denying it on the other side.


3--If you want to follow it all the way, we should be acting like strict Islamists. Culture, culture, culture Raven.

 

1--The first point is not worth arguing, since Paul addresses it well.  There are good reasons to avoid certain activities during menstruation.  And washing one's feet was a practical necessity in those days because they all wore sandals and walked on dusty and muddy roads.

2--Your position on the SOP lends itself to ignoring the valuable counsel that was so graciously given us to prepare us for the end times.  We ignore it at our peril.

3--Islam is not our example or standard.  They are obviously fanatics.  Culture, however, is not neutral.  How far would you carry this?  If it became acceptable for women to go topless in  public, as it still is in some cultures, would you still argue in favor of culture?  The culture argument is a slippery slope.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Deborah Risinger on October 07, 2009, 02:56:59 PM
I wish we could talk about issues without going so far off the chart, the issue becomes "lost."

The church does indeed need to "speak" in a way that "clicks" with our century....no doubt.

I don't think people (not wanting to speak with a wide brush) really have balance any longer.  Modesty means many different things to different people.

I certainly am turned off by those girls who dress like they live so far in the woods .....well..... it is hard to relate.  At our campmeeting there is a lady...a nice girl, but she dresses in such a way...it is a deterant...there is no merit in looking like you live in the wrong century.

I own a business...I have for about 20years.  I must look like a person that "knows" business....It is true, some have lost that perspective. God needs us to be viewed as "sensible, balanced, well dress people worth listening to. That will be our "in" to start a conversation about the Gospel.

My original issue with the article "I thought" skewed the modesty issue.  Perhaps I took too strongly the approach the author took.


God Keep Us All
Deborah  :-)
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Agatha on October 07, 2009, 06:53:32 PM
How long will this forum tolerate its members disparaging the Spirit of prophecy as manifested in the life of Ellen G. White?

Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Richard OFfill on October 08, 2009, 02:46:27 AM
There are principles that are from the beginning and that transcend culture. The purpose of the plan of salvation is to overthrown contemporary culture because a culture is a reflection of a mindset. When Jesus said that we must be born again He is saying that, from the heart, our lives will reflect a new culture.

While the Bible is our source of principles that are universal, the Spirit of Prophesy fleshes out those principles and show us how we apply them to contemporary life. The culture of the 21st century is much worse than that of the 19th century. To overthrow or disparage the applications that Mrs. White passed on to us legitimizes the current culture which is becoming more and more a reflection of a fallen nature which is at war with God.

Taking a position that depreciates the Spirit of Prophesy is incompatible with the purpose and policy of this forum. When we join we are de facto agreeing to play by the rules. Personal attacks are as well inconsistent with the spirit of the conversations that we have here.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Agatha on October 08, 2009, 05:17:41 AM
Amen and thank you!
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on October 08, 2009, 09:38:40 AM
there is nothing new under the sun
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: GraceVessel on October 09, 2009, 07:12:09 PM
So basically, If I hold EGW writings as inspired and informative to me and yet dont use them as a doctrinal source.... does that preclude me from posting on this board?

It seems that those that don't "agree" with the full doctrinal authority are in many ways ... questioned for lack of faith in her writings.  I for one agree with everything she has written... especially the GC which I've completed from a biblical perspective... especially the Sanctuary Doctrine.  However, I feel that for me to "source" EGW to establish a doctrine when in conversation at the evangelistic series we just completed... would be duplicitous.  Where do we source?  Either we show what we believe from EGW and fullY stand behind her as doctrinal authorty or we dont.  So for example... we have one set of evanglistic series that sources bible... and the other sources.. Bible/EGW with EGW being the final say on doctrinal interpretation?  How does that sort out with someone that is joining?   The obvious answer for this forum would be to "avoid" the bible only source for doctrine... i vehemently disagree. 

It's taken me quite a bit of time to fully establish why I believe what I believe from the Bible ALONE.  Once i get a doctrine solid,, then I go back and look at ALL the fully inspired commentary that Jesus has revealed to us through his servant - EGW.  But I dont "source" it as the reason for why I believe it.

I will NOT stand before a judge in the last days... quoting the what and wherefores about scripture by quoting EGW... however "inspired" it is... (which I think is fully inspired)... it is not the universally held document (66 books) that I can point to that ALL will understand.

(cont)

with kind Regards,

Gracevessel
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: GraceVessel on October 09, 2009, 07:22:21 PM
On the other hand... Jesus gave other specific counsels ... SPECIFICALLY from EGW.. which include the health message and specific testimonies for the end times.  THOSE I fully think apply as additional canon - but ONLY to Adventists and/or people that agree that her writings are inspired in this area.  BUT this is more of a personal decision and doesnt refer to doctrinal application specifically.

Thus - I find myself nearing the age of 50... talking to a myriad of adventists that a) dont know what they believe b) are confused about why they believe what they believe (source EGW or Bible and/or both.... throws up hands !!!!) or c) takes the wait and see approach to see what the church ultimately decides on the matter before making a stand (why decide when the church can think for you)... or d) take the time to actually study our doctrines from the bible and know them SOLID, and then gather all additional light that has been provided from her inspired commentary to fully know the truths that are needed for the end time - (d) is the route I have taken and will continue to take...

If that makes me not accepted on this board - then maybe my membership needs to be removed for honest commentary.

God is waiting for a people to prepare and get ready in all aspects of life... that's why her commentary is so important.  Her additional counsels for this time fully "flesh out" a complete understanding for the time in which we life regarding the later rain, the Sanctuary doctrine, the judgment, and what personal cleansing is for each believer in Christ... if you cant think for yourself, then others will think for you.  Nature abhors a vacuum.

with kind regards,

Gracevessel
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 09, 2009, 08:45:13 PM
Gracevessell, the rules of the forum are that we do not attack or demean or devalue the doctrines of the SDA church and we do not attack Ellen White or her ministry. None of the doctrines of our church were established on the basis of Ellen White. They are all solidly Bible based. That is not a problem. I agree with you that many Adventists do not really know what the doctrines of the church are, and cannot defend what they do know neither  by the Bible or Ellen White.

A good friend of mine was brought into the church through a series of evangelistic meetings by one of the very prominent ministries. Just before the baptism, the candidates were given a paper to sign that contained a list of the churches fundamental beliefs. The Evangelist read the list aloud and asked people to sign that they accept these beliefs. My friend raised her hand and asked, "Who is Ellen G. White?" The Evangelist said "Dont worry about that now. You will learn all about her later. Just sign that you are willing to be baptized." Ellen White was never even mentioned during the series.

It seems that the bigger problem in the church is the neglect and even the antagonism towards the counsel, warnings and information that was given through her dreams and visions to bring us safely through until Christ returns. She had some very pointed things to say about the condition of the church near the end. I don't think that there are very many congregations that are willing to hear these vital warnings and reproofs.

Concerning this forum, when it becomes apparant that a person has a problem with using Ellen White in a discussion at all, and persistently mounts attacks on those who post EGW quotes it becomes clear after a few years of it, that this is not in accordance with the spirit of the rules of the forum.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 10, 2009, 03:10:28 AM

It seems that the bigger problem in the church is the neglect and even the antagonism towards the counsel, warnings and information that was given through her dreams and visions to bring us safely through until Christ returns. She had some very pointed things to say about the condition of the church near the end. I don't think that there are very many congregations that are willing to hear these vital warnings and reproofs.


I definitely agree with you on that point.  I caught some flack a few weeks ago for showing Stephen Bohr's sermon, "Identity Crisis."  It covers some of the current trends in the SDA Church.  He is pretty plain spoken, as usual, and doesn't beat around the bush.  It was brought up at the next business meeting that we shouldn't use DVD's for church.  Funny, there was no objection from this same person when we showed all 10 of Doug Batchelor's sermons from the "Here We Stand" series.  It was the content from Stephen Bohr that was unwelcome.  It stepped on more toes than usual (3 people got up and walked out).  But what good is a sermon if it doesn't step on some toes, or, better yet, knock some of us "up side the head" a bit?

I see I've gotten off topic again.  :roll:
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: GraceVessel on October 10, 2009, 05:16:35 AM
Larry, Good morning and thanks for your points.  I agree with them.  One of the things that I have noticed though on this board whether intentional or not intentional is that some of the responses tend to "knee jerk" with the response (whether or not the response is correct or not isn't the point) that EGW is being attacked just because someone is disagreeing with a specific "post" of someone else..

Just so I am not misunderstood here. I am not saying that and EGW response is wrong (this forum encourages the use of EGW in the dialogue and posts as part of the charter)... what I am saying is that sometimes a response indicates that since a person disagrees with another persons post the "must be questioning" EGW.  As you aptly point out, there are adventists among us that are not "up to speed" on the necessity of EGW in the end times.

Furthermore, it would be more efficient to first respond with a thus saith the Lord on a subject from the Holy Scriptures, and then further explain what you are trying to say to further apply the point from EGW.  This method to me seems the most acceptable (even given the rules of this board)... that doesnt preclude someone not taking that method... people are free to do what they wish posting... we all are individuals and are very different and I've gathered alot of counsel from correct and "incorrect" (structure wise) on this valuable site.

A good example would be a pastor or evangelist lining up quote after quote (correct information by they way) from EGW and then just reading that in order without ever quoting the the Holy Scriptures - God's Word.   The truth would be there, but the context is lacking. Especially to those were not "properly brought into the church"

What are your thoughts on that?

with kind regards,

Gracevessel
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 10, 2009, 08:18:26 AM
Gracevessell, I agree with what you say. Not to defend anyone, but when a person has demonstrated over time, what seems to be an antagonism towards EGW it may seem as though others are being a little too quick to defend EGW when it appears that the predictable attack is coming from the usual direction. There is a longer history behind these intereactions than is readily apparant. It may that as moderators, we could intervene sooner by cautioning people before such discussions go to far in the wrong direction.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Larry Lyons on October 10, 2009, 09:02:17 AM
I definitely agree with you on that point.  I caught some flack a few weeks ago for showing Stephen Bohr's sermon, "Identity Crisis."  It covers some of the current trends in the SDA Church.  He is pretty plain spoken, as usual, and doesn't beat around the bush.  It was brought up at the next business meeting that we shouldn't use DVD's for church.  Funny, there was no objection from this same person when we showed all 10 of Doug Batchelor's sermons from the "Here We Stand" series.  It was the content from Stephen Bohr that was unwelcome.  It stepped on more toes than usual (3 people got up and walked out).  But what good is a sermon if it doesn't step on some toes, or, better yet, knock some of us "up side the head" a bit?

I see I've gotten off topic again.  :roll:
Raven, it seems like people have the misconception that sermons are just supposed to make us feel good. It seems to me that a sermon should not just leave us in the same state as which we came. Considering the times we are living in, shouldn't a sermon leave us with a sense of urgency to see that our lives reflect the light and the priveleges that we have had, as well as a burden to share our faith with others. I am going to order Steven Bohr's sermon Identity Crisis. We may be without a pastor for awhile. I welcome any reccomendations for good DVD sermons.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Raven on October 10, 2009, 10:21:34 AM
Raven, it seems like people have the misconception that sermons are just supposed to make us feel good. It seems to me that a sermon should not just leave us in the same state as which we came. Considering the times we are living in, shouldn't a sermon leave us with a sense of urgency to see that our lives reflect the light and the priveleges that we have had, as well as a burden to share our faith with others. I am going to order Steven Bohr's sermon Identity Crisis. We may be without a pastor for awhile. I welcome any reccomendations for good DVD sermons.

Amen to that.

He has a worship series,which includes "Identity Crisis."  I'm not sure how many are included in that series, but the other two that I have are "God Focused Worship," and "Systematic Benevolence."  I used the one on God focused worship back in June, and nobody squawked, but "Identity Crisis," is a harder hitting sermon in some ways.  I believe you will be blessed by all of them.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Richard OFfill on October 12, 2009, 09:39:15 AM
A year or so ago I was talking with a recently baptized member. She had a problem with the Spirit of Prophesy. She related how a person had said to her, "The Bible says, and Mrs. White confirms it." It seems to me that it is here that there are problems and if see from what the lady said about Mrs. White confirming the Bible, something is up-side-down. I have noticed that there are many genuinely sincere brothers and sisters whose remarks are rarely if ever from Scripture but are only quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy.

I have always felt that the Spirit of Prophesy is not better than the Bible, a new Bible or instead of the Bible. But rather a God given gift to unravel the lies and misrepresentation of scripture and to amplify last day prophesies as given in Scripture which relate specifically to the end time events. There seems to be no problem in applying Bible principles to our time, but some seem to see the Spirit of prophecy as not about principles but as verbatim instructions from 1844 forward. For this reason there is, as it were, a hole in the wall where those who would overthrow the Spirit of Prophecy can crawl through.

To apply her counsel as principles for the 21st century will increase her relevance and not diminish it. I might add that prophesy is not the application of principles but something completely different. I believe that a person who rejects the Spirit of Prophesy will ultimately suffer a collapse of his faith in the remanent church. I firmly believe that Mrs. White represents the gift of prophesy in the Seventh-day Adventist Church Adventist Church.

It is interesting to read:

The Lord has sent his people much instruction, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. O, how much good would be accomplished if the books containing this light were read with a determination to carry out the principles they contain! There would be a thousandfold greater vigilance, a thousandfold more self-denial and resolute effort. And many more would now be rejoicing in the light of present truth. {RH, January 20, 1903 par. 9}
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: wordkeeper on October 18, 2009, 03:46:17 PM
Will you help us get the word out? Gwen Shorter and I have recently put up a website on Christian modesty for Seventh-day Adventist women. The web site is almost ready, and we're wanting to get the word out to all SDAs. We feel that this is a very important but much neglected topic. We have put together what we feel is a balanced presentation, useful for all women no matter where they are in their Christian experience as Seventh-day Adventists. We are wondering if you would be willing to let all your SDA friends know about this web site. We are having a special time of prayer on Oct 20-22, and wanting to send out emails to as many as possible on October 22. Please check out the website at http://www.movingtowardmodesty.com and also our Facebook group at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=150674233404&ref=ts
Thank you for considering this project. Jesus is coming soon, and we need to get ready!
In Christ,
Linda Kirk
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on October 18, 2009, 04:15:04 PM
looks really nice.... 
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: wordkeeper on October 22, 2009, 09:05:30 AM
On this 165th anniversary of when Jesus entered the Most Holy Place, we are wanting to let every Seventh-day Adventist in the world know about a much neglected message from God. God desires His remnant to be clothed in heavenly raiment. Our outward dress is to reflect His purity in our hearts. For too long, God's inspired counsels have been hidden from His church. Jesus is coming soon! It's time to give the straight testimony! We can't hold back for fear of the people rising up against it!

Please tell every Seventh-day Adventist that you know about the http://www.movingtowardmodesty.com web site. No matter where they are, they will find something there to inspire them to move toward modesty, if they are willing!  Many new additions have been made. We need your help to get the word out!

Thank you so much! Have a blessed day,
Linda

Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: Honesty on December 31, 2009, 09:32:56 AM
You know the sad thing is that non-adventists have taken modesty and are promoting it. And I'm not talking about old people, or fanatical offshoots. One is actually a youth movement, subtitled 'a teenage revolution against low expectations', and they did a survey of what stumbles guys, and what youth consider immodest, the results are shockingly good:
http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse (http://www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/browse)
There are many others, here is a sample:
http://sisterwithstandards.blogspot.com/2008/12/selfishness-of-immodesty.html (http://sisterwithstandards.blogspot.com/2008/12/selfishness-of-immodesty.html)
http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2008/04/a-sneak-peek-at.html (http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2008/04/a-sneak-peek-at.html)
I can't remember where but I remember EGW stating that our peculiarity shouldn't make us offensive to the look. So we can dress with modern clothes as long as they don't cross the boundaries of modesty and decency, and that is for everyone to decide for themselves. Having said that we should educate our church members on this issue, and other christian standards of living (we really didn't invent these, they aren't SDA copyrighted). I would recommend Joe Crews "Creeping Compromise" as an excellent resource on standards.
Another thing I've noticed is that the older people are abandoning the standards they themselves held to, and the younger generation is having to remind them and be a thorn in there side, and they just hate it. We should promote a standard among our members, but we should not beat them over the head with it, it should be informational. As for visitors, we should look at their eyes and nowhere else, talk to them, be friendly. As Paul says, we are not to judge the world, but believers.

As for the 19th century observation, it really needs to be addressed fairly. So here is what I see:
Just look at the hypocrisy between male and female dress in church. Men are still in the victorian era with only their hands wrist down showing and from the neck up, with layered clothing hiding the body, even though men don't really have much to show to begin with (this applies to outside of church as well in many cases, or secular clothing). Contrast this to female church clothes (let alone outside of church) where you can be as tight, short, transparent and revealing as you want - not to mention if you slightly move in this or that direction, then all bets are off. Nobody needs to know a woman's exact breast cup size, waist measurement, and shape of behind while clothed, and then to see everything else when she moves just a little bit. Many women don't understand what they are getting themselves into when they dress like that. I'll simplify the issue: Women think it's all fun and harmless. Men think women want to have sex as soon as possible. And since many are so media exposed and used to seeing people half naked they loose their sense of modesty, and think it's normal. Pretty much what many women wear to church would have been considered underwear 70 years ago. Shopping for modest clothing is another difficulty for women, because the fashion industry has consistently lowered the neckline and tightened the clothes among other things. To be fair most women are relatively modest in comparison to the most revealing clothes that are worn today, but not modest when compared to clothes they themselves wore just 10 years ago, even though it wasn't ideal at that point either, and I'm not advocating for women to go buy old clothes or look like frumpy bag laddies either. Let me stress that I believe that 99% of women consider themselves to be modest, and are horribly offended if this issue is raised to the contrary. I think they confuse this with criticism against them, and being told they aren't beautiful. But I think that is the very issue, an issue of the heart, they think they aren't beautiful. This is another lie that the media propagates. To all the women out there: YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL! It causes me such pain to see women thinking they aren't good enough, and the depths they'll go to in an endeavor to keep up with the images around them. Women unknowlingly expose themselves to vulgarity and danger. I'll leave it at that because this is a complex issue that needs education and sensitivity and dialogue on all sides, because people can be mean even when they don't intend to. I hope you are able to take my thoughts on this issue in the loving manner that I intended it to be shared, because sometimes words without tone can be very different depending on who's reading it. (Don't get me started on men, because there are issues I can address on that side also.)

Finally as far as culture goes we have seen the nipple become the new breast/cleavage. As long as the nipple doesn't show, it's ok. I've even noticed men's necklines dropping, and exposing/unbuttoning themselves - which is just plain disgusting. Then look at children's clothing. Girls clothes have lower necklines than boys, it starts early. Notice the cartoons also...
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on December 31, 2009, 11:38:20 AM
well said and I agree
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: V. Hahn on December 31, 2009, 11:41:57 AM
Welcome to the forum,Honesty!

May I just say one thing though...let's keep our discussion of modesty modest.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on December 31, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
Welcome to the forum,Honesty!

May I just say one thing though...let's keep our discussion of modesty modest.  Thanks.
:-D
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: deacon1949 on January 06, 2010, 11:35:58 AM
 


The bottom line is that cultural norms DO change. Just because it was against cultural norms for skin to be showing, doesn't make showing skin wrong, Raven. Again, you are assuming that the cultural norm of the 18th and 19th centuries were correct in their standards and are trying to make them apply now as if they are established cultural truths. 'If it was wrong back then, why is it okay today?'. Come on. Think about it. There were many unacceptable things back then that we would consider harmless today. Why are we wrong to consider them harmless but they are right for deeming it unacceptable.

Again, if you want to live in the 19th century according to 19th century cultural norms, by all means do it. Just don't judge others for not wanting to live in that mindset. It is perfectly okay to accept those things that may not have been acceptable back then.


If it was wrong back then, what makes it right today? The ideas of men? Cultural change has always been offered as a 'reason' [more like an excuse to do what you want] wrong is wrong, for both sexes. The dress of men and women today [our 'culture'] is immodest, and sometimes just plain obscene.
But hey, it's a cultural thing. Who knows, maybe 200 years down the road, we'll all be running around naked, but het, that's the culture of the times.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: ColporteurK on June 26, 2015, 09:25:11 AM

 In an effort for young men to be more rebellious and disgusting some now wear white gym type shorts underneath and then they can wear their outside shorts or pants so low they can hardly walk in them. The white gym shorts mimic underwear. This way they cannot be arrested or removed from a public place yet it gives the impression that the pants are coming off.

A few days ago my wife purchased a "modest" pair of swimming trunks for my teenage son. The are cut at the knees. However, I noticed something unusual. The color pattern of the trunks makes them look like they are coming down and the underwear is showing. The trunks are three colored with a white band about 6-8 inches wide running on the top then blue then red on the bottom. I don't believe it is an accident that the trunks are patterned that way.

It never ceases to amaze one how pathetic fashion can be.
Title: Re: Christian Modesty
Post by: newbie on June 26, 2015, 05:58:21 PM
yes, I have seen this kind of 'fashion' and it is getting harder and harder to find something modest